Hi, On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 07:45:54AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 10:53:47AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > Due to the decision of using missing_ok=true in the end-of-transaction > drops, that could indeed help. I'd be curious to hear back after the > next minor release.
Yeah, Kouber do you think you could upgrade to 17.11 or 18.5? (current schedule is August 13th, 2026 ([1])). > > Michael, I wonder if that would make sense to add this "set_next_oid" kind > > of > > thing to a contrib module to test this kind of OID reuse issue. Same idea as > > xid_wraparound. > > That's probably larger than just the OIDs. Maybe something that's > able to do what pg_resetwal does for the control file could be useful. > Publishing another footgun sounds a bit annoying, but we also have > stuff like pg_surgery, that serve a similar purpose to shortcut the > backend. Yeah. In addition to the OIDs I could think about the mxid (but I think they would be better suited in xid_wraparound). The others look way more difficult (if doable) to do outside pg_resetwal. So I'd be tempted to just add an oid_wraparound one and we could add this test case too. Thoughts? [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/developer/roadmap/ Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
